Stay the course, slay the horse?

By DOLPH HONICKER

In a rapid advance to the rear in the bloody occupation of Iraq, George W. Bush and his fellow warriors have muzzled their impotent “stay-the-course” weapon and unleashed newly coined rhetorical artillery under the rubric of “progress moving forward.”

This new “strategy” is anchored upon a three-legged stool of (1) governance, (2) security and (3) economics.

At least it has a far better ring to it than the shock and awe

pre-preempted invasion labeled Operation Iraqi Liberation and changed as rapidly as you can spell OIL to Operation Enduring Freedom.

Democrats can never hold a candle to the way Republicans can shoot themselves in the foot and tap-dance away from “stay the course” to “a study of constant motion,” meaning that stay the course did not mean what it said.

Still, in a Salt Lake City address in August 2006, Bush said: “We will stay the course. We will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed.”

And July, in Milwaukee, according to the Washington Post: “We will win in Iraq so long as we stay the course.”

Earlier, in June, after returning from Baghdad, “I saw people wondering whether the United State would have the nerve to stay the course and help them succeed.”

But, just as he cut and ran from Afghanistan, Bush has cut and run from that phrase of steely resolve.

White House press secretary Tony Snow and the Bush team has tried to explain that “stay the course” does not actually mean stay the course but is a study in constant motion by the administration.

And what once was “we’ll stand down as soon as they stand up” is now we’ll “step back as they step forward and step up.” A little longer, perhaps, but it gets the point across.

In an Oct. 11 news conference, Bush became tangled over the original phrase, complaining, “The characterization of, you know, ‘it’s stay the course’ is about a quarter right. ‘Stay the course means keep doing what you’re doing. My attitude is: Don’t do what you’re doing if it’s not working -- change. ‘Stay the course’ also means don’t leave before the job is done.“

In a later appearance with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, it was no longer a quarter right as Bush said: “We have been -- we will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we’re constantly adjusting tactic. Constantly.“

It was painful to watch Marine Gen. Peter Pace, head of the Joint Chief of Staffs, blinking rapidly like a resurrected Richard Nixon as he tried to put a new face on a disintegrating policy.

Instead of a target date to withdraw from Iraq, we now have a timetable with windows of opportunity for the Iraqi leadership to meet. If they fail to meet our timetable for cleaning up corruption, protecting the population and rebuilding the infrastructure, then we’ll adjust the timetable and open the windows a little wider. To put a precise date on our leaving, Pace says, meekly echoing his boss, would result in chaos -- as though Iraqis today were living in Ronald Reagan’s peaceful city on a hill.

Anyway, as the commander-in-chief himself once announced -- in words meant to sound Churchillian -- the war against terrorism will be long hard, bloody and victory will be up to the next president(s).

Blame Bob Woodward for the recent Republican shift in “strategy” that’s merely a shift in rhetoric. In his book, State of Denial, Woodward peels away the framework from the false White House of cards to reveal the arrogance of the neocons, particularly former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney who led a willing Bush into the Iraq quagmire.

And remember, Rummy was Bush’s point man until the day after the election.

Pythian Press